First drive in an E90

I got an E90 325i as a loaner car from a BMW dealership when my M Coupe was in for its 1200 mile service. What follows are my impressions of the car.

The exterior is not the tasteless mess that the 5 and 7 series are, but it lacks the refined ellegance of the E46 3 Series. There are some angles from which the car looks unbalanced and akward, where the E46 looked perfect from every angle, and some detailing (such as the tailights' boundary lines) were not well chosen.

The interior is cheap, akin to a 4-year-old Mazda 6. For the price of a 3 Series I'd expect a lot better materials. The E90's interior is also somewhat ugly - far less attractive than the E46's interior. I was also surprised to find only manual seat adjustments. I must surmise this was standard on the E46 as well, but I never got an E46 loaner (same dealership) that didn't have a power driver's seat. The E90 seats were comfortable though, and held me well through turns.

The steering effort felt ok at first, but at slower speeds it seemed to have a variable ratio. I assume this feeling is actually variable effort, but it still makes transitional driving uncertain. Overall the steering feel was ok, and the weight is good at highway speeds, but it offers less feedback than the E46 models. Why BMW thinks that ditching the benchmark steering of the sport sedan segment is beyond me.

Grip was very good, and turn-in was crisp and positive...except at lower speeds where it was dead and overly light. The ride was exceptionally smooth for it's cornering ability.

The brake travel was short and precise, but felt dead and remote. Maybe it's better when pushed around the Nurburgring, but for daily driving it's no more remarkable or tactile than a Toyota's.

The new 6-spd transmission is much better than the E46's 5-spd, although shifts in automatic mode are still a bit slow. Shifts in sport mode are much improved, but you sacrifice fuel economy because it then holds gears under part throttle. Manual mode is good, with shifts happening fairly quickly. But the transmission still upshifts near redline, thus invalidating the purpose of manual shifting.

The engine pulled well and returned good mileage. It's as good as one would expect from BMW.

Other gripes:
How do I deactivate DSC? There is a DTC button, but I believe that only deativates the Dynamic Traction Control. With stability control still active, you cannot properly track the car, or drift, or truely drive it in a sporting manner. Apparently the lawyers have won...or BMW is no longer interested in building "ultimate driving machines".

The rear seat center headrest blocks the bottom 1/2 of the rear view mirror. This makes the E90's rearward visibility worse than the Z4 Coupe's - often panned unfairly by the press.

The new turn signal stalk is not as ergonomic as the traditional one. A slight push in one direction causes the signal on that side of the car to blink three times (not once, not twice, but thrice, not four, not five, just thrice). Pushing it further makes it stay on until you turn significantly. It's not the worst idea for a turn signal stalk ever, in fact it's the second best, but why toss out a perfect system for a "newer" one that's almost as easy to use? This is another example of German over-engineering at the expense of usefullness.

Which brings us to the key. Oh, wait, it's not a key...it's some sort of button-sporting fob/plug thing. Ok, forget that it's actually larger than the previous key, forget that it does NOTHING different, forget that it's clunky Ford-looking hunk of plastic instead of being a compact work of functional art, BMW's "keyless" starting system actually requires MORE effort than using a traditional key. Instead of just sliding the key in and turning it, you must first insert the "fob" into a slot on the dash, then move your hand up and hit the start/stop button. That's not too bad, but to shut off the car you must put it in Park, hit the start/stop button, and then push IN on the fob and then pull it out of the dash slot. Personally, I'd rather just turn the key and pull it out in one smooth motion and get on with my life.

Before returning the car I re-filled it with gas - a process made irritating by there being NO finger dent with which to pry the outer cap up. I even tried pushing in the rear of the flap, but that didn't work. Eventually I was able to pry it open using both hands. There was no remote release (that I could find). I'm sure there is some easier way to open the flap (there MUST be!), but it certainly wasn't intuitive for me to figure out.

I really tried to like this car, and much of its engineering is worth liking, but the overall design, feel and ergonomics are a big step backwards from the previous generation. While it is statistically superior in most ways to the E46, I couldn't quite shake the feeling that I was constantly asking the car for permission to do things instead of simply driving.

Buyer Beware!

On 10-16 my wife and I dropped our 2002 Focus ZTW off at Ford of Orange. It was misfiring badly and the check engine light was either on solid, or blinking ominously.

On 10-17 Oscar Rosales, the service adviser, called me and told me that there were two problems with the car: 1) The spark plug wires were bad. 2) The ignition coil module was bad. The latter was covered by the $50 deductible of our extended warranty, but he told me it would cost $299.95 (+tax!) to replace the wires - which were not covered under warranty. I did some online research and quickly discovered that the wires could be bought for as little as $20.27 (autosupplywarehouse.com), or as much as $33.99 at my local Autozone.

On 10-18 I went back to Ford to inquire as to their outrageous price. I was told that the wires cost $70, plus 2 hours of labor, plus a 1/2 hour for sharing the diagnostic charge with the warrantied repair. I asked Oscar if he had ever changed spark plug wires in a car before. He said he had not - a great qualifier for a service adviser! I explained to him how ridiculously easy the process is, estimating that it could take no more than 5 minutes - a far cry from 120 minutes! I told him that it was ok to do the warrantied repair (coil module), but that we were not going to pay $299.95 for a $20 part and 5 minutes of effort (half of which would have to be done under warranty to remove the coil module!). He told me that they could not replace the coil module until the wires had been changed. I told him to bring the car up, that I would fix it and return it to him. I took the car to the street next to the dealership, parked it legally, and popped the hood. I removed the old wires and installed the new ones, including re-mounting the factory wire clips. According to my stopwatch this took all of 2 minutes and 38 seconds! I drove the car back to Oscar, having picked up the car less than 5 minutes before, and told him to fix the coil module. Needless to say he looked very surprised!

For some reason, it took them 2 more days to replace the coil module - a process that takes about 15 minutes. While I am generally in favor of our capitalistic society, it concerns me when a company willfully misrepresents the cost and difficulty of a simple repair to the public. I knew better, and my knowledge saved us about $270 (730%). I am writing this so that other customers will: 1) Avoid Ford of Orange as to enforce a penance upon this dishonest company. 2) Be skeptical with regard to the true cost of automotive repairs - so often misrepresented by dealerships.

p.s. Along the lines of the preceding, I had a similar incident at Crevier BMW's service department. I took in our 540iT because the PDC (Parking Distance Control) sensors were acting strangely. Later that day I received a call and was told that the repair would not be covered under warranty because it was their assertion that the wire on one of the sensors looked like it had been "chewed on". They could replace the sensor for appx. $270, or try to repair it in an estimated 2 hours: for $250. I told them not to repair it. I picked up the car and took it to a local independent BMW repair shop BMS (714-429-0257, in Santa Ana). I repeated the story to the owner of the shop and he popped the faulty PDC sensor out, soldered the wire, and replaced it in less than 15 minutes. Another case of a dealer trying to milk a gullible public.

Why I hate the new E60 M5

"The mortal sin for any automotive manufacturer is change for the sake of change."
-me

BMW, like Porsche, has a history of carefully reevaluating its cars and upgrading their capabilities and styling to suit changes in the marketplace and with consumers. With the E60 M5, and in fact most of the Bangle-era cars, BMW has stupidly alienated its core customers in exchange for advancing the technolgy of their vehicles. Sure, technological advances are certain and necessary, but how quickly and how ergonomic? I-drive, Bangle's styling, active steering, and essentially-unmodable engines, BMW has over extended itself and reduced the appropriateness of its vehicle line.

Radical change is never good if the baseline was considered perfection.

Since many have asked, here are some of the reasons why I didn't place an order for an E60 M5:
- I-Drive sucks. As a completely computer-literate person I am saying: IT SUCKS! It is a bad design of a debateably useful feature. BMW should have just ripped off Audi's MMI, it's not perfect, but it wouldn't keep me from buying an Audi (their reliability would).
- Styling. Sure, it's more modern looking, but Bangle can't see the forest for the trees. His designs have lots of good, interesting details that don't add up to a good looking car.
- Performance. It's not that much of an advance over the E39 - except in M mode and accelerating over 100mph. My S2-M5 is faster than the E60 up to speeds I actually see in daily driving, and handles as well.
- No stick. Automatics are not fun, regardless of the jargon or shifter location. Yes, I know a stick is coming for the US, and I credit BMW a little on that call.
- Mileage. Yes, mileage. Or more specifically, driveline efficiency. This goes back to my first thought about the E60 M5: They chose the wrong engine for that car. If I wanted to go fast and suck gas like there's a hole in the tank I'd buy a Ferrari. I'm not saying this because I am cheap, but filling up takes time and it's annoying. Besides, my S2-M5 has nearly the same power as the E60 and gets an easy 14mpg around town with play and 22mpg on the highway. It would bug me to drive a car that's not really faster in any practical sense, pay more to do it, and THEN pay more at the pump. I just think that's stupid.

I'm not resistant to change, I've changed a lot of components on my E39, I'm resistant to poorly-thought-out change.

The truth about Bush and the economy

Maybe I got suckered in to the brainwashing leftist hype for once, but I actually thought that the American economy was in a little bit of trouble during the last four years. Despite a major correction/recession in late 2001, the U.S. economy has not only bounced back strong - it's come back stronger than anyone else! In a time when every nations' economy is more inseparable from what we call the "global economy," comparative prosperity is more significant than absolute prosperity.

According to the OECD, even through what Democrat's term as "Bush's mismanagement" of our economy from 2001-2004 the U.S. was still in a better position than any other industrialized nation. Based in Paris (France, not Texas), the OECD is similar to the UN in purpose but specializes in economic and trade matters. After reading through their material I was surprised at what I found. For the purpose of replacing myths with facts, I thought I would share it with you.
(Note: All stats come from a OECD .pdf file which you can download if you don't trust me.)

GDP
Gross Domestic Product growth for 2004:
USA: 4.7%
Japan: 3.0%
Euro Area: 1.6%
Germany: 1.1%
France: 2.0%
Italy: 0.9%
UK: 3.1%
G6: 3.4%

Confidence
The U.S. has had, on average, higher Consumer Confidence and Business Confidence than any other country from 2001-2004. While these statistics are closer to polls, and are more subjective than objective, they nonetheless have a significant influence on the economy. Consumer Confidence predicts consumption, which is tied to the demand for goods, which is tied to production, which is tied to jobs. Business Confidence predicts creation of new companies and maintenance of existing companies' financial growth, which is tied to job creation and overall economic stability.

Real Wage Growth
U.S. wage growth averaged 1.7%/yr vs. 1.1%/yr in Europe and -0.6%/yr in Japan over the last four years. While the raises themselves are small, and the difference may not seem significant, it's still an average 55% larger annual raise you'd be looking at in the U.S. (vs. Europe).

Core Inflation
1.5%/yr in the U.S. vs. 1.9%/yr in Europe, a 27% difference. The most telling comparison is that U.S. Real Wage Growth exceeded Core Inflation by 0.2%/yr, while in Europe people lost an additional 0.8%/yr due to Core Inflation exceeding Real Wage Growth.

Unemployment
Let me take this opportunity to remind you that 3-5% is considered the ideal unemployment range. Any higher and the country is not making the most of it's capable workforce, any lower and too many probably-less-than-capable people are being paid for sub-par work. 0% is NOT an ideal unemployment number.

The average U.S. unemployment rate from 2001-2004 was apx. 5.1%, just a little outside of the ideal range - not too shabby at all! By contrast, Europe's average unemployment rate during the same period was 8.4%!

For the Democrats who continue to whine about how Bush's policies have increased unemployment and hurt America's economy I offer the following: During the Clinton administration unemployment averaged 5.5%, yes, higher on average than during Bush's first term (5.1%). And Clinton was in control of a historical industry boom, while Bush had to pull America out of two simlutaneous disasters (911 and the 2001 major market correction). So quichyerbichin about Bush and unemployment, the facts don't support it.

What does the OECD say about America's economic future under Bush's policies?
"...US expansion increasingly hinges on employment creation and business investment. Household confidence is affected by the sub-par pace of job creation recorded to date, but remains around its long-run historical average, boding well for the resilience of consumption. Firms are far more upbeat. They have taken advantage of the prolonged spell of historically low interest rates to strengthen their balance sheets and enjoy ample profits. This should allow for robust business spending and greater hiring going forward."

Gas prices
Another myth, that we had the highest oil prices under Bush, is just that - a myth! Using 2004-adjusted dollars it is clear that oil prices peaked in 1982 at over $80/gal. Oil prices were also much higher for the duration of the Carter Administration than they have been under Bush. Moreover, today's oil prices are influenced by the emerging giant China as well as a huge increase worldwide for oil-based plastics that was not a significant factor in oil demand until the last two decades. Blaming Bush for the "highest ever gas prices" is groundless. It is factually untrue. And even if it wasn't, prices would be high due a global rise in demand, not Bush's economic policies.

How do I feel?
Now I know many Democrats want us to emulate Europe's more social employment practices, but consider how well they work. Euro GDP growth was half America's, with nearly twice as many people unemployed (9.6% vs. America's 5.35% over the last 12 years). America's confidence and wage growth are higher, inflation and unemployment are lower. While I don't particularly care for Bush, and I didn't vote for him in 2004, I can't fault his economic policies. This is one instance when he can accurately say, "Mission Accomplished."

It's all a lie

Once again frustration at the success of openly dishonest communication has forced me to write. This time I will explain how our entire political system is a sham.

First, some definitions. They all come from Webster. Remember them when I use these terms later.
Webster's definition of Liberalism:
a: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
b : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Webster's definition of Conservatism:
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
c: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Webster's definition of Socialism:
a: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
b : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
c : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Webster's definition of Fascism:
a: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
b: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Lie #1: We have a two-party system.
There are many political parties in America, but only two get press. The media assists the Dems and Reps because they get kickbacks and influence - just like any other lobbyist group. The truth is that there are at least three other serious parties that have valuable positions worth arguing: Libertarians, The Green Party and the Independent Party. While I don't agree much with the Greens or Indes, I am a firm believer that their perspectives add to our collective whole as a nation.
But our "two-party system" won't let them in the door. The Dems and Reps lock 3rd parties out of debates (even arresting 3rd party candidates that show up to debates under court orders!), they sabotage attempts to get 3rd party candidates on state ballots and worst of all: They have insidiously modified America's understanding of political definitions. To me, this is the smartest, and most evil, trick played on Americans by Americans. If one does not know the rules of the game, one cannot possibly win - And the Reps and Dems have collaborated to blur the lines to such as extent that all but the most studious voters cannot really understand who they are voting for.
The key word in "two-party system" is system! Just like mafia Dons, the Reps and Dems have territories (both ideological and physical) that they may squabble over, but they will not hesitate to collaborate in preventing anyone new from getting a meaningful foothold in the game. Is this the government you want to have? Are these the people you want to support?

Lie #2: Democrats are liberals.
First, let me remind you that "Democrat" is a political party, and "liberal" is a political ideology. One does NOT necessarily determine the other. Democrats are commonly thought of as pushing a liberal agenda, but are in fact more similar to fascists (yes, like the Nazis). As this is no doubt a shocking statement, I remind you to refer back to the definitions above. The following are commonly known Democratic Party platforms and their true definition match:
Political Correctness = Fascist: national stability placed above the individual right of expression/severe social regimentation. Race placed above the individual's right to free, peaceful expression.
Socialized heath care = Sounds socialist, but is in fact Fascist: a centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation. A true "socialist" system would in fact be entirely state run without any privatization from insurance providers to doctors.
Social Security = Sounds socialist, but is in fact Fascist: a centralized autocratic government, severe economic and social regimentation. Again, in a true "socialist" system you would not get retirement payments, as all property belongs to the state.
Minimum Wage laws = Fascist: severe economic regimentation, restricting free trade and negotiations of labor.
Tax increases/fighting against tax reduction = Conservative Fascism: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change, stressing established institutions, severe economic regimentation, preference of regimentation over invention.
Arresting 3rd party candidates for attempting to serve a summons under court orders to do so = Fascist: Forcible suppression of opposition.
Please note: I am not saying any of these party platforms are wrong, that's not the purpose of this essay, I am simply proving that Democrats are not liberal - and are therefore lying to their constituency.


Lie #3: Republicans are conservative.
Once again, a reminder, "Republican" is a political party, and "conservative" is a political ideology. One does NOT necessarily determine the other. Republican's throw the word conservative around a lot, but in reality they are only morally conservative. Economically, and even socially they can be very liberal; and their security measures tend toward Fascism (again, look at the definitions). The following are commonly known Republican Party platforms and their true definition match:
Homeland Security Act/Patriot Act = Fascist: tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
Tax reduction, IRS reform = Liberal: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market.
Right to bear arms = Liberal: a political philosophy based on the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Minimizing increases in minimum wage = Liberal: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market.
Anti-Political Correctness = Liberal: a political philosophy based on the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Arresting 3rd party candidates for attempting to serve a summons under court orders to do so = Fascist: Forcible suppression of opposition.
Please note: I am not saying any of these party platforms are wrong, that's not the purpose of this essay, I am simply proving that Republicans are not truly conservative - and are therefore lying to their constituency.

Lie #4: Americans are stupid and can't think for themselves. They must be cajoled, brainwashed, misinformed, bribed or threatened into choosing what's "best for them."
If you've read this far you've already proven the fallacy of lie #4. Thank you.

Automotive fallacies

These are some common, generalized beliefs concerning automobiles that I feel need to be corrected:

1) Gas engines burn gas.
While gas is consumed by gasoline engines, it is air they burn to make power - not gas. Oxygen is the primary explosive force in a gas engine. Gasoline is the chemical catalyst that allows the oxygen to be ignited without filtering out all the other chemicals from air to form pure oxygen. If you increase the ratio of gas in an engine, making it "richer", you get less power, not more. If you reduce the gas ratio, making it "leaner", you can get a little more power but a lot more heat which can damage the engine. To make the best power an engine's air/fuel ratio needs to be properly adjusted in relation to the physical components of the engine.

Essentially, one can think of the internal combustion engine as an air pump. It sucks air in, causes it to combust, transmits combustion into rotational force, blows the air out and repeats the process. The best way to make more power is to allow the engine to breathe and exhaust with the least amount of restriction. I'll say it again: Horsepower is not gained through guzzling gas, it is gained by allowing the engine to burn more air with less restriction.

2) Horsepower matters?
Horsepower does not exist, at least not in a physical sense. It is a calculation based on torque and rpm. Specifically: HP=(TQ*RPM)/5250.

Torque is real. Torque is the amount of physical twisting force that the engine exerts at a given rpm. RPM stands for Revolutions Per Minute, or how fast the engine's crankshaft is spinning. The more rpm (more speed), the more torque is multiplied (work done more often).
Engines are typically tuned to deliver maximum torque at an rpm appropriate for their usage. Truck engines tend to develop peak torque at lower rpm, sacrificing high-rpm torque, so they can haul heavier loads without needing to rev the engine to high rpm all the time. Race cars tend to develop peak torque at higher rpm because they want maximum horsepower and are willing to sacrifice the ability to accelerate from a slow speed while hauling more weight.

3) Big engines use more gas.
This is false. Moving weight is the primary cause of gas consumption. Moving weight requires horsepower; the more weight, the more horsepower is required to accelerate that weight. If said vehicle is equipped with a small engine, that engine will need to rev to a higher rpm in order to produce enough horsepower to accelerate the vehicle (see #2 above) than if it were equipped with a larger, more powerful engine. This means that the smaller engine has to work harder and the driver must use more throttle than with the larger engine. A smaller-engined vehicle will often have a poorer mpg/hp ratio when towing or accelerating than a larger-engined version of the same vehicle. However, smaller engines require less fuel to idle. In situations when the driver will need less horsepower, like stop-and-go or medium-speed highway driving, the smaller engine will often have an advantage.

If any one characteristic of a vehicle could be blamed for using gas, it is weight. Luxury items like stereo speakers, power seats, automatic transmissions, air conditioning, all wheel drive systems, navigation systems and DVD players and safety equipment like airbags, rigid crash structures and backup sensors all add weight - and a lot of it! It is not uncommon for a half ton (often 1/4 of the vehicle's mass) of a vehicle's weight to be caused by adding optional luxury and safety equipment. I am not saying this equipment is wrong or evil, I am simply stating that it is incorrect to blame the size of the engine as the primary source of gas consumption. Convenience and safety cost.

4) Powerful engines pollute more than smaller, weaker engines.
This is completely false. The efficiency of an engine and the efficiency of it's pollution control devices determine it's emissions. Smaller, lower horsepower engines are most often used on entry-level vehicles or as base engines in mid-level vehicles. For cost reasons, manufacturers cannot equip inexpensive vehicles with engines as efficient as those found in expensive vehicles. This means that often the most powerful luxury vehicles, that consume more gas (like the BMW 7-series), are cleaner than cheap low-power vehicles (like the Geo Metro) that are most often believed to be less polluting. Did you know that the circa-1999 495hp Ferrari 550 Maranello pollutes no more than a 120hp Honda Civic?

5) More emissions controls are necessary to save our environment.
When I was in high school during the 80's in Los Angeles we had 1st-stage smog alerts about every other week during the spring and summer months. By the time I graduated college it was very unusual to have a 1st-stage smog alert at all. During that nine-year span there was also a visible change in air quality in the LA basin. How did this occur? Did people go outside and spray the air with Windex? Of course not. The air is cleaned by particulants being washed out by rain and the settling of the marine layer. Eventually these particulants find their way to the sea. During the 80s automobiles and industrial plants were polluting so much that pollutants exceeded nature's ability to wash them away.

This situation has dramatically changed, particularly due to advances in pollution control devices on our vehicles. It is now possible to lock yourself in an air-tight room with a running automobile and not be poisoned - although you could eventually die of oxygen deprivation as the engine uses it up (see #1 above), or from your own carbon dioxide emissions (exhaling).
Do we really need to make our vehicles cleaner than they are now? I do not think so. Emissions controls are expensive to research and that cost gets passed on to consumers. Are we really better off spending our money on making clean vehicles even cleaner, or on new safety devices like pre-crash sensors and blind-spot-sensing mirrors that will save lives?

The truth about minimum wage

It hurts everyone, especially the poor. Liberals, it's scientifically proven, deal with it. If you don't believe me, read on:

1) Minimum wage creates and encourages unemployment.
Minimum wage removes wage negotiating power for both employers and employees. This is bad for both parties as it raises the cost of production for the employer because he is forced to pay more, and it reduces the marketability of the employee because he is forced to charge more. There are many jobs in this country that people would be willing to take for less than minimum wage. Why? Because they would rather work for something than earn nothing. Assume an employer makes $50,000/month in gross sales and $20,000 of that goes toward payroll. From this he is able, at $4/hour, to employ 125 employees (assuming a 40-hour work week). If he is then forced to pay each employee $5/hour, that same $20,000 can only provide for 100 employees. Thus he has to lay off 25 employees, or reduce every employees' hours to 32/week, or more likely . . . see #2:

2) If an employer's cost of production increases, there is no corresponding increase in profit without a rise in sales value.
Even if the employer reduces his costs by laying off employees, he still has the problem of reduced production capacity. While some belt-tightning is possible by using more steamlined production methods or other technological breakthroughs, the reality is that nearly all of the increased labor cost will have to be passed on to consumers. This is because . . . see #3:

3) Minimum wage jobs are primarily in basic production industries.
This is bad because each stage of production is hit by the raised cost of labor, each increasing the cost to the next employer and ultimately to the employee. Which leads to . . . #4:

4) Minimum wage sends jobs oversees.
Why pay for expensive American labor when an Indian can do just as good a job for 1/10th the price? Did you know that in America the average auto assembly line worker makes $26/hour compared to $0.10/hour in China? I'm not kidding! That's 0.03% as much! It's no wonder that American companies are shifting production oversees. Can we ever compete with communist-run China when it comes to slave-labor prices? No. But we don't have to. We simply need to lower the artificial restriction of minimum wage so that the cost of production will be reduced enough that the advantages of local production offset the lower labor rates found in third world countries. The problem is that we are not eliminating minimum wage, so we continue to outsource labor to other countries. Besides the obvious job loss, there is another problem . . . see #5:

5) Outsourcing reduces our nation's ability to produce basic products in an emergency.
Am I sounding paranoid or just thinking the problem through? What happens if we are content to outsource basic labor jobs to the point where the skills no longer exist in our country? What effect would this have if we ever had to stand on our own, against a trade embargo? This is topic is probably best explored in a future blog, so I'll get back on topic . . . with #6:

6) Minimum wage hurts everybody's bottom line.
If an employer is required to pay $5/hour for a position that he wants to pay $4/hour to fill, inevitably he must raise the sales price of his widget to compensate for the increased production cost. As most widgets (cardboard, gas, steel, etc.) are produced in order to be used in the production of other widgets (boxes, commercial transportation, car bodies, etc.) this raises the cost of production for the next employer who in turn must raise his sales price. This goes on and on until the finished product (computer packaging, potato chips, automobile, etc.) is sold back to the employee. The problem is that the employee getting $5/hour instead of $4 thinks he is earning more. Unfortunately the items he has to purchase go through two, three, four or more stages of production. This means that the cost of production increases due to minimum wage several times, not just once. This means that the end product is sold to the employee at a proportion in excess of his theoretical "raise". And this means . . . see #7:

7) Minimum wage hurts the poor more than it hurts anyone else.
While the increased costs of consumer goods means that everyone has to shell out more for groceries, the poor suffer the most. Why? Because they have the largest proportion of their income allocated for non-discretionary spending. I.E. They spend more of their money on food, as a percentage, than more wealthy people. Sure, a rich guy may pay more for his Corvette because of minimum wage, but he could always choose to not buy the Corvette and get a cheaper car. The poor guy, on the other hand, doesn't have a lot of choice when it comes to buying toilet paper - it's pretty important. I know this is a rather simplistic example, but I hope you see my point . . . of which I have one more, see #8:

8) Minimum wage costs the poor more in taxes.
How? Because they are earning more, there is more to tax. The increase in income can, in some cases, even push them past the point at which they are eligible for government aid. In any case, they must pay more to the government in the form of taxes, all while paying more for products they need. It's a lose/lose situation.

So, what does all this mean?
In layman's terms, we all lose money any time the minimum wage exceeds what an employer would naturally pay an employee in a free market - but the poorest Americans lose the most. There is an evil irony in the fact that the very people receiving minimum wage are the ones most hurt by it. It is even more ironic that minimum wage only exists because liberal politicians push it as a means to help the poor.

Liberals, if you really care about the poor in this country, stop allowing your representatives to pass measures which inflate the cost of living. Conservatives, if you really care about business, stop voting for politicians who "compromise" by raising minimum wage slowly. Minimum wage hurts everyone, and it's time to stop!

How to fix our country in three simple steps:

The US would be a noticeably improved country if we simply taught the 3 Rs (Respect, Responsibility and Residuals) with as much zeal as we teach fear, blaming others and credit card spending.

Respect
How hard a concept is this? Respect other people's right to exist! Give others the same freedom that you feel you are entitled to. Let people make whatever life choices they want, so long as they don't try to take away your right to choice. Be reasonable and tolerate (maybe even accept) those that choose differently than you. Remember, each of us seems weird to someone else. That's what our country is all about - difference of opinion. And if you have a strong difference of opinion with your neighbor? Don't ingore the option of compromise simply out of pride. A perfect society is not one that strives for a single goal or mindset, but one that embraces as many as possible so as to diversify its ability to understand.

Responsibilty
We've totally lost sight of this, but once apon a time there was a place called America where people were actually held accountable for their actions. If you smoked and got cancer it was sad - but it was YOUR fault for being stupid enough to smoke. If you died because you didn't put a seatbelt on - it was YOUR fault for not thinking about the consequences of your actions. We are so sue-happy now that our entire economy is inflated to offset legal fees and insurance. The medical insurance crisis? Due almost entirely to litigation costs. How do we fix it? 1) Start taking responsibility for your actions. Stop looking to blame others when you make a mistake. 2) Start teaching your kids to solve their problems instead of automatically seeking intervention from an authority figure.

Residuals
This is not simply a monetary term. I use it to reference the long term result of any action. In laymen's terms: THINK! What you do today, whether eating fast food, playing basketball, teasing a coworker, or reading a book, will probably have a long-term effect. It may not be obvious at first, but if you think about it you can probably figure out what those consequences are - good and bad. It is not necessary to correctly predict the future, simply acknowledging that there IS a link between present-day actions and future effects will do a huge amount of good in your life. Think beyond today, beyond your immediate wants or needs, and your life will be better. Teach this to your children and they will make better decisions and live better lives as well.

So remember the 3 Rs when you get up tomorrow. Respect others' right to be themselves, take responsibility for your actions and encourage others to do so, and remember that choices create residuals. If the 3 Rs help your life, pass them on. If they get passed around enough, maybe we'll be able to find America again.